Key take away for me from "What Great Managers Do to Engage Employees" was this:
Performance management is often a source of great frustration for employees who do not clearly understand their goals or what is expected of them at work. They may feel conflicted about their duties and disconnected from the bigger picture. For these employees, annual reviews and developmental conversations feel forced and superficial, and it is impossible for them to think about next year’s goals when they are not even sure what tomorrow will throw at them. (emphasis mine)
This is something we've been struggling with at my job. We use quarterly OKRs to set goals for all employees, but many of our OKRs (for me and my direct reports) lose relevance after 2 or 3 weeks.
So, I'm still looking for ways to help me (and my team) measure our performance and set clear, relevant goals.
Resetting NTFS files security and permission in Windows. Life saver for someone (me) who still reluctantly maintains a Windows machine.
icacls * /T /Q /C /RESET
I think the Russian spies' use of steganography is the most interesting part of this story. Happy to see media outlets starting to look into it.
Sure, there are probably whittlers who could take a log, go after it with a knife for a couple of days and come back with a fair representation of a bobcat or Jefferson Davis. And yet, it's still whittling.
Music: What Happened? By Michael J. Nelson
This is a good spin on the "bad bank" idea. But what I don't understand is why we need a bad bank at all. I thought the whole point of a bad bank would be to enable new capital investment in banks by clearing out their balance sheets. Well, the banks already received the new capital investment -- TARP funds. Why do they need to get the bad assets off of their balance sheets? They've got their new capital. Now, just hang on to the bad assets and liquidate them over the next several years, possibly at a profit -- just like the bad bank would do! What am I missing?